I spent $12 on a plastic molded version of the cardboard. It's got good straps and adjustable lenses. The effect, even on my phone, is great. I've spent a lot of time just loving the YouTube 360 videos. With my morbid fear of heights, I watch a lot of the base jump videos and try not to lose my mind.

I've been able to run everything I've thrown at it without a hitch, although some games (i.e. Project CARS, Elite: Dangerous) stutter at higher graphic settings, so I have to adjust accordingly.

I haven't tried super-sampling yet (at least via the Vive's settings), so I may look at upgrading my GPU to take real advantage of that. But I'm waiting to see what all the current next-gen GPU options will be.

For anyone who thinks that VR is merely a passing fad, there's some pretty substantial capital being laid out to keep it going:

Quote

When Razer announced its $5 million developer fund for indie virtual reality developers, we were rather excited about the potential of this investment to help drive the production of new VR games and experiences. But as it turns out, that was merely a drop in the bucket, though, as HTC has just announced a new VR development fund driven by a number of companies, with a total of $10 billion in available capital.

HTC had also previously announced their own $100M VR venture capital fund. And of course you have Facebook investing $2B in Oculus, Valve devoting a substantial part of their company to VR, and other companies like nVidia, AMD, Sony, Microsoft, Samsung, etc, investing in VR, I'd say things are looking good for the immediate future.

I've been able to run everything I've thrown at it without a hitch, although some games (i.e. Project CARS, Elite: Dangerous) stutter at higher graphic settings, so I have to adjust accordingly.

I haven't tried super-sampling yet (at least via the Vive's settings), so I may look at upgrading my GPU to take real advantage of that. But I'm waiting to see what all the current next-gen GPU options will be.

This is the reason the VR is so good the system you try it on is what it comes down too. if you can game at 120fps outside of vr you might get 90fps with VR. VR pc requirements are much higher than gaming pc requirements. Im too cheap to buy a $300 VR approved card. me with my lonely r9 280 will not be doing any VR but i plan on just waiting till the VR comes down in price and the cards in my price range come up in performance. till then ill be doing Playstation VR.

*edit* your card is still $500 i spend about that much on a whole tower couldnt imagine just getting the video card for it. but i bet that things runs everything maxed out. well except VR.

*edit* your card is still $500 i spend about that much on a whole tower couldnt imagine just getting the video card for it. but i bet that things runs everything maxed out. well except VR.

It's all about what kind of experience you want. You want to get from A to B, buy the cheapest car you can. You want to get from A to B really fast, you have to spend money.

Personally, I can't imagine a gaming rig without a decent 3d graphics card in it. A $500 tower gets you a computer that can surf the web and play java based games (or mame). That's not a "gaming" computer, that's a "personal computer". Add a good graphics card and now you have a gaming computer.

But hey, if you are going to spend $800 on a display/controller (like a VR headset), why wouldn't you power it with at least a decent $300 card (in your $500 tower)? I wouldn't get an 80 inch 4k tv and then watch VHS tapes on it or even SD DVD's for that matter, and I wouldn't buy a Corvette with a lawnmower engine in it either. So why would I have a really great (and fairly expensive) display device without a good source to feed it?

I have been playing around with mixed reality last few weeks it's pretty fun. Now if Vive will hurry up and sell extra controllers in the US so i can attach a third one to a camera and have moving camera.

*edit* your card is still $500 i spend about that much on a whole tower couldnt imagine just getting the video card for it. but i bet that things runs everything maxed out. well except VR.

It's all about what kind of experience you want. You want to get from A to B, buy the cheapest car you can. You want to get from A to B really fast, you have to spend money.

Personally, I can't imagine a gaming rig without a decent 3d graphics card in it. A $500 tower gets you a computer that can surf the web and play java based games (or mame). That's not a "gaming" computer, that's a "personal computer". Add a good graphics card and now you have a gaming computer.

But hey, if you are going to spend $800 on a display/controller (like a VR headset), why wouldn't you power it with at least a decent $300 card (in your $500 tower)? I wouldn't get an 80 inch 4k tv and then watch VHS tapes on it or even SD DVD's for that matter, and I wouldn't buy a Corvette with a lawnmower engine in it either. So why would I have a really great (and fairly expensive) display device without a good source to feed it?

the slowest car and fastest car will get from point a to b in the general same amount of time because speed limits. a 500 dollar tower built by me gets you around 60fps in the newest games at 1080p. 500 still gets you 16gb mem an i5 and a decent gfx card. above the 200 dollar price point of gfx cards diminishing returns hits you back hard. same with cpu as well, unless you're running VR it is over kill. oh and all computers including gaming are "personal Computers" hence PC.

the slowest car and fastest car will get from point a to b in the general same amount of time because speed limits. a 500 dollar tower built by me gets you around 60fps in the newest games at 1080p. 500 still gets you 16gb mem an i5 and a decent gfx card. above the 200 dollar price point of gfx cards diminishing returns hits you back hard. same with cpu as well, unless you're running VR it is over kill. oh and all computers including gaming are "personal Computers" hence PC.

If your goal in life is to go the same speed as everyone else and not do anything exciting, then yes, the slow car AND the slow PC will get you where you want to go. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you are OK with just keeping up with your grandma. I am sure you will enjoy playing Candy Crush with her.

On the cheap:gen 6 core i5 : $200Janky case with bare minimum PSU: $75Super basic mobo for gen6 : $70Slow ass HDD $5016gb of the slowest ddr4 : $50Assume you can get it all with no shipping, that's $450 for a damn slow new computer.Now, show me the $50 "GAMING" card that will get you 60fps at 1080p on a game made in the last year.

Sure, if you buy 3 year old hardware and an nvidia 950 graphics card you can probably play a game from 2 years ago at 60fps at 1080 at the lowest settings and stay at $500, but we are talking about building a new computer here, not a "new old stock" computer.

Sure, they are all "PC's", but not all "PC's" will play a modern game at a playable frame rate with any level of detail. You don't buy any old "PC" when you need a workstation, a gaming rig, or a media server. You buy specialized parts that cost more than normal and create a purpose built PC.(just to piss off PBJ, even a race car is still a car, but you don't take your Prius to the track when you want to go fast).

That being said, you don't NEED a purpose built computer to play games. While I don't agree that $500 will get you a tower with current gen hardware that can play current gen games at 1080 and 60fps, that isn't why I responded to your comment. I get your gist, and I agree that buying top end can get crazy in prices. I was just saying that if I am building a computer to play games, I am not going to skimp out on the one part that will make the biggest difference. And personally, I will not skimp on anything that affects performance. I don't go cutting edge any more, but when a friend comes to me asking to build a gaming computer from scratch, I won't deliver the equivalent of a used Dell with a mid-line graphics card either. And the upside to using the newest gen when buying is it lasts longer before it is obsolete. I can redo the CPU, RAM, and mobo one year, then the graphics card the next, then the HDD and OS on the 3rd year, then start over, and never spend more than 300-500 each year and still have a solid gaming rig all year round. It didn't cost $500, but I don't throw the whole thing out each year to build something that will work for the latest games either. Plus I can sell the old stuff and recover 30% of my upgrade costs.

Just ordered the Vive. Had to ordered a graphics card also, my weak GTX 460 wouldn't stand a chance. The 1070 should be plenty though.

I upgraded to the 1080 from my 980ti, gained a little performance. In most things, the 980ti was more than enough. And in some games that are not well optimized, even the 1080 is not enough.

The vive runs each eye at 1200 lines of resolution, and has a built in supersampling of 1.4x, so it renders at somewhere around 1500 lines. You also NEED to be at 90fps minimum or the display freaks out. So it takes some horsepower. There is a mode you can enable called 'reprojection' that will go into a low performance mode if it drops below 90fps and will keep you from getting instantly sick from the glitching. It will kick everything down to 45fps then double the last frame, so your frames will be choppier.

You can also add your own supersampling multiplier that will add on top of the built in 1.4x. For some games this helps tremendously as it will render upwards of 4k resolution (assuming your graphics card can do 90fps at 4k), and then downsamples it to the 1200 lines of the displays in the headset. However, some games are just way too 3d intensive and can't handle it even with the best cards. So if you play those games, you will be constantly editing the xml file to adjust the supersampling. I am running my supersampling at 1.4 with the 1080 and it can handle brookhaven experiment, one of the worst games for performance.

The problem with the vive is not one of resolution per se, rather one of pixel size. The pixels are too small, which normally wound't be a problem, except the lenses that take the square display and make it curved for your eyes basically magnify it, and it's like putting a magnifying glass in front of a monitor. You end up seeing the spaces between the pixels, which makes a "screen door effect". Plus, anything photorealistic has to start at VERY high resolution, and usually that is not the case, so most photorealistic stuff tends to look low res, particularly in the distance where your eyes are trying to pick up small details and instead pick up the screen door effect. Games that are more "cartoony" seem to have more immersion for me.

Aside from the overall resolution, my biggest complaint with the Vive (and VR in general) is that so many companies are trying to "wow" you, and so much content is way up close, which is fatiguing. When 3d is 3 inches from your face, you go cross eyed trying to look at it. Unfortunately nothing is really well optimized for the resolution so if it isn't way up close it is not very clear. They need to learn that super close is not always better, and getting a finding the sweet spot between distance and clarity is key in any game. The precision of the controllers is there, they simply don't need the objects 2 inches from your eyes so you can manipulate them. Unfortunately, there is no adjustment you can do after it is rendered as it is rendered specifically for a certain scope. The games that don't try to wow you with the 3d are the ones that you can play for hours.

One more note on room scale: There is a line starting to form between Vive games and games that are for the Rift or SamsungVR: Most of the new stuff coming out is room scale if made for the Vive. So while room scale is not NECESSARY, if you want to get the most from a Vive, having a big room is key. I can play Space Pirate Trainer to about wave 11 or 12, but after that without being able to move around (a LOT), I can't compete. More and more games are becoming this way.

Don't get me wrong, the high requirements, limitations, and early stages of software are certainly issues but VR is an unbelievable experience even right now. By the time the next Vive comes out (2-3 years from now is the speculation), so much more will be worked out. There are a few methods being researched to eliminate or reduce motion sickness, moving around in 3D spaces outside the bounds of room scale is being perfected, and resolution, better optics, and lighter (maybe wireless) HMD's is not far off. Give it 5 years and if you don't have a VR set, you will be left behind in the gaming world. My problem is I want it now, not 5 years from now... Owning a Vive only made me want this 100x more.

I've used a wide range of them and currently am on a Oculus CV1 and GearVR

Thought i'd just throw out what the differences are between headsets for people to get an idea of where they are in quality etc.

The top two players are the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift CV1These systems have full rotational and positional tracking so you can walk around a room if you want etcCurrently the Vive has wands for motion controllers and the Oculus has Touch which is motion controls as well (Being released in October)

The general gist is you want two things for a great VR experience.

1) Rotational Tracking2) Positional Tracking

Now the screen obviously needs to be a great screen to give you an impressive jump into a VR world but both Rift and Vive have great screens both different with different drawbacks but no matter which one you get it will be great.

Now Rotational Tracking is the minimum we need for VR

This is will allow you to turn your head around in the VR world.

Phone based systems like google cardboard do this but because they aren't made for VR they don't have a high enough refresh rate to give a great VR experience it's good but not where it should be.

Now a system like Gear VR uses a sensor that can provide the high enough refresh rate to provide a good VR experience.

Now we get into the range of great VR which needs positional tracking.

This allows you to be tracked through space and this is very important a simple example is it allows you to lean forward and look at an object in VR and provides a 1:1 experience like the real world.

The issue with systems like Google Cardboard and Gear VR is this can help make you sick as if you move forward or try to peek around a corner your view doesn't move and because your brain didn't expect that it causes motion sickness.

All three systems the HTC Vive, Oculus Rift CV2 and Playstation VR provide both positional and rotational tracking and are the best VR you can use currently. This doesn't mean google cardboard or Gearvr don't have their places either being compact and portable are a boon and there are positional tracking solutions that can be added to these systems but the software needs to support it and there isn't currently a set standard for this on mobile yet.

I really do recommend if you haven't tried VR try one in a store if it is available locally but I urge you to try a Oculus Rift with the Touch Motion Controllers this is the best system I have used so far. As I stated before both systems are fantastic and you will love them no matter which one you use there's just one or two things that has pushed the Oculus Rift in front for myself but this is the start of VR we have great systems and everyone will be happy with either

Well I hate to poop on the party, but it turns out I was probably right yet again. According to the sales figures released by steam, sales of the Vive and vr software in general have dropped off to nearly nothing. The rift is estimated to be at a standstill as well, but it's hard to tell as they haven't released their figures. What industry insiders are saying is that this means all the early adopters have already bought all they are going to buy and more casual gamers simply aren't buying it. The reason these stalled figures are worrying is due to the fact that this is based on August/September figures, which are the first months where a lot of this gear is officially available to the public. There should have been at least some kind of surge in sales, but there wasn't any.

So on the pc end at least, VR is dead.

Hopefully for you guys the console based VR solutions might restart the industry, or else you aren't going to see many new games anytime soon.

Well I hate to poop on the party, but it turns out I was probably right yet again. According to the sales figures released by steam, sales of the Vive and vr software in general have dropped off to nearly nothing. The rift is estimated to be at a standstill as well, but it's hard to tell as they haven't released their figures. What industry insiders are saying is that this means all the early adopters have already bought all they are going to buy and more casual gamers simply aren't buying it. The reason these stalled figures are worrying is due to the fact that this is based on August/September figures, which are the first months where a lot of this gear is officially available to the public. There should have been at least some kind of surge in sales, but there wasn't any.

So on the pc end at least, VR is dead.

Hopefully for you guys the console based VR solutions might restart the industry, or else you aren't going to see many new games anytime soon.

Actually you're wrong Howard (I remember you said back in 2013 when i posted about getting my KS oculus rift that it would be a fad I don't see why you seem to be so against it)

The Sales figures you are talking about aren't sales figures but the Steam Survey which people have to opt into and doesn't count the Rift or Vive if it isn't plugged in or for rift users who don't use steam (I'm one of them I like home but still use steam for 2D content just not for VR) There are multiple reports about how the survey doesn't actually count all the hardware correctly and most probably only counts games that work for the Vive only. Check the news and you will see other news articles about how the survey doesn't actually state what the current state is.

I admit that the Vive catalogue does feel kinda like tech demo's but they jumped into the game late and released the hardware early and the games don't really compare to the ones oculus has on their Home platform.

So sorry howard but VR isn't dead and shortly the Oculus will have a huge range of motion controllers with their motion controllers about to be released.

We have major game companies already slated a bunch of VR games to come and there's a huge push in Japan for it as well a bunch of franchises that western audiences mostly don't know and a bunch that do as well.

Well I hate to poop on the party, but it turns out I was probably right yet again. According to the sales figures released by steam, sales of the Vive and vr software in general have dropped off to nearly nothing.

They haven't released any sales figures. People are estimating that based on Steam hardware survey results (which likely have a margin of error for reasons mentioned above).

Plus people are completely ignoring that electronics are highly seasonal with most sales coming in the November/December months. For example, when the PS3 was first released it sold decently in Nov/Dec 2006, then its sales plummeted in the following months. I'm sure if people made the same assumptions, they'd declare the PS3 a dead console. But then it picked up again the following Nov/Dec (and after some price cuts/new model introductions).

There are still a few things that need to happen before people start declaring VR dead:

1) The Holiday season and how that impacts sales2) Any sort of price cuts and/or HMD changes HTC makes3) The release of Oculus Touch and the adoption of motion controls as a broader standard4) The release of PSVR and its impact on the general VR market

If in 6-12 months everything that flattened with no signs of revival, then we can start talking about the death of VR.

Found an interesting article published back in 1987 about how people viewed home computers and video games as a fad. Interesting how much of the rhetoric back then seems to be mirrored with today's VR market.

Found an interesting article published back in 1987 about how people viewed home computers and video games as a fad. Interesting how much of the rhetoric back then seems to be mirrored with today's VR market.